Text Size

-

+

reset

Kerry: U.S. 100% with Israel

In 90 secs: What's driving the day

A well-regarded Obama foreign policy surrogate with close White House ties, Colin Kahl, and the best-known media voice for pro-Israel forces in Washington, Josh Block, got into a nasty Twitter tangle over the weekend that laid bare how caustic the Iran debate has become between the two staunch allies.

“As usual, U don’t know what UR talking about & R advocating max alt[ernative] that’ll lead 2 war,” wrote Kahl, a top Pentagon official during Obama’s first term and the co-chairman of the president’s foreign policy board during his 2012 reelection campaign.

The bitter showdown occurred just outside the veil of officialdom, where diplomatic conventions and the desire to keep intact the broad bipartisan coalition supportive of Israel dictate that formal spokespeople for the White House, the Israeli government and the largest pro-Israel groups carefully measure their on-the-record comments.

The cause for the current fight: the Obama administration’s drive to strike an interim deal intended to halt and/or roll back Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for a limited easing of sanctions on Tehran. Despite intense Israeli objections, such a pact was almost agreed to at international talks with the Iranians a couple of weeks ago — negotiations that are set to resume on Wednesday in Geneva.

The new conflict comes in the wake of a series of pointed disagreements between President Barack Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in recent years over issues like the Israeli-Palestinian peace process and the U.S. response to the Arab Spring movement.

“It’s the worst I’ve ever seen,” said Leslie Gelb, president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations. “The government officials on both sides aren’t going to say they’re enraged, but they are, and their supporters will tell you that. People on the fringes in Israel are saying it, supporters here are certainly saying it and Obama supporters are saying it, but not with a swipe at Israel.”

“Both sides are fighting viciously here,” said the Brookings Institution’s Ken Pollack, a National Security Council staffer under President Bill Clinton. “That same polarization that we’ve seen with health care, immigration and gun control, we’re seeing it now with Iran.”

Netanyahu and top U.S. officials have tried to maintain the polite diplomatic facade, but those efforts haven’t been able to mask the divide.

“This is a big issue, and people of good faith can have different opinions,” Netanyahu said Sunday on CNN. “Friends, and the best of friends, can have different opinions. We agree on a lot of things. There are some things we disagree on.”

“We always listen to the concerns of our Israeli friends, particularly on issues related to the Iranian nuclear program,” U.S. Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes told Israel’s Channel 2 television. “There are some tactical differences. … Our view is even when we have some differences that are aired publicly that the fundamental goals remain the same.”

Despite the talk of agreement on broad goals, it’s evident that there’s now a wide U.S.-Israel gulf over potentially crucial strategy toward Iran.

Netanyahu’s denunciation of the proposed interim agreement with Iran as the “deal of the century” for that country and a “grievous historic error” effectively painted Obama in an unflattering light, as either a rube too naive to understand Iran’s intentions or insufficiently committed to Israel’s security.

That rhetoric angered White House officials, who believe the Israeli leader was distorting the provisions of the proposed agreement.

“We have been very firm with the Iranians on what we expect,” Obama said Tuesday at a Wall Street Journal conference in Washington. “Let’s look. Let’s test the proposition that over the next six months we can resolve this in a diplomatic fashion while maintaining the essential sanctions architecture. … I think that is a test that is worth conducting.”

For its part, the White House has incensed advocates for Israel by portraying war as the likely, certain — or perhaps, for some, desired — alternative to the Geneva talks.

“The American people do not want a march to war,” White House press secretary Jay Carney said last week. “And it is important to understand that if pursuing a resolution diplomatically is disallowed or ruled out, what options then do we and our allies have to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon?”

Kahl’s tweet, suggesting that rejection of an interim deal will lead inexorably to war, clearly touched the same nerve.

“There is something deeply disturbing about the charges being leveled by officials and journalists that people critical of the administration’s approach or terms of the Iran negotiations is a warmonger, anti-diplomacy or isn’t acting because they believe it to be in America’s interest, but because they have some ulterior motive,” said Block, now CEO of the Israel Project.

“A deal with Iran that reserves financial relief in return for a halt to enrichment and a dismantling of its nuclear infrastructure is the kind of deal American diplomats should be seeking precisely because it is smart diplomacy, and because it is is the surest way to peaceably stop Iran from being able to build a nuclear weapon,” he added.

Kahl, senior fellow at the Center for New American Security, declined an interview request.